A comparison between cemented and cementless implants in revision arthroplasty of the hip following resection arthroplasty.
Twenty patients underwent hip re-arthroplasty following resection arthroplasty due to former prosthetic infection, aseptic loosening, or TBC coxitis. In 9 cases Gentamycin-loaded cement was used. In 11 the re-arthroplasty was cementless. The overall results, evaluated by the Mayo and Harris scoring systems, were moderately good. Seventy-five per cent of patients reported relief from pain and improved hip function. However, in the previously infected cases significantly better results were found in the cementless group, while major complications such as deep infection, luxation, or loosening of the implant were mainly concentrated in the cementless re-arthroplasties following aseptic loosening and cemented re-arthroplasties following septic as well as aseptic failures.
Suominen
S
S
Orthopaedic Hospital of the Invalid Foundation, Helsinki, Finland.
Ragni
P
P
Lindholm
S
S
Antti-Poika
I
I
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001843:Bone Cements / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002183:Canes / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005684:Gait; D006622:Hip Prosthesis / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007870:Leg Length Inequality / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010146:Pain / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D012086:Reoperation / Q000592:standards*
D001843:Bone Cements